March 7, 2006, - 4:53 pm

Does This Mean We Get Affirmative Action?

By Debbie Schlussel
Today’s New York Times reports that Whites will soon be a minority in the Metropolitan New York area, according to Census figures.
The times also reports that this will also soon be the case in the San Diego, Washington, Dallas and Las Vegas regions.
So, does this man that, since Whites will be in the minority, that they will get the benefits that go with “living while cracker/honky”? Like affirmative action race preferences in hiring, admissions, promotions, and White minority set-asides in government contracting?
Don’t count on it. Even though what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, it isn’t good for the honky, apparently. They can just change the nomenclature. “Minority business development councils” will now be “Majority business development councils,” with the latest minority–the ever more disempowered White male–getting the short end of the stick.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses

Of course you forget to mention the following—
Real median household income did not change between 2003 and 2004 for non-Hispanic whites, blacks or Asians or for households with Hispanic householders.
Black households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups. Asian households had the highest median income ($57,518). The median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977. Median income for Hispanic households was $34,241. [From: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html ]
Whilst all the pseudo-libs run around calling GW a nazi, it has always been obvious to me that the GOP are striving for a pre-liberation of the serfs czarist society. A ruling elite of a “princely” class whose existence thrives on a permanent underclass. How long after they relinquish all the rights for the rising brown horde do you think it will take to go after the Jews?

EminemsRevenge on March 7, 2006 at 5:37 pm

I taught in Chicago for ten years all of which was with Mexican and Black students. The most effective affirmative action program would be to AFFIRM minority education from the ground up starting with pre-schools all the way up to decent high schools. There is no incentive for schools to improve which serve minority populations if minority students get a Get Out of Jail Pass upon graduation and can gain access to excellent universities with substandard performance. Under our current affirmative action program, minorities are being disenfranchized even further.

Skimp on March 8, 2006 at 6:50 am

This column is weak, even for Debby?s standards. Gratuitous use of the term honky and concern for the ?ever more disempowered White male?. She leads the parade in misunderstanding the need, use and goal of Affirmative Action. The only alternative she advocates is ?lock ?em up and forget ?em?.
FYI, THIS IS NOT A COLUMN.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

MikeR on March 8, 2006 at 9:22 am

Since I have not read the NY Times since 2004, I am sure that the tenor of the article is undisguised joy.

Ripper on March 8, 2006 at 10:19 am

Whenever I read a woman, especially a white woman, point out the difficulties that white men are experiencing, even if I’ve read it from that person before, I still get amazed. I’m so used to the ideas that we white males have to fend for ourselves without help from anyone else, without others recognizing or being willing to recognize the difficulties that are occurring. Perhaps I’m not so different from the other while males in a) seeing how the deck is stacked against us and b) persisting in just doing the best I can because I can’t very well chance the color of skin and have no desire to change my sex?
Sommers book “The War on Boys” was an eye-opener to point out that what I perceived for years wasn’t my imagination. All of what I perceived to be occurring (and more) was pretty well detailed out in the book.
My solution? I shrug. Me saying anything would fall on deaf ears. I loaned the book to a feminist and was accused of hating women (and never got my book back). We can’t say anything about our situation because it would appear self serving and seem like I’m trying to claim victimhood status. Total hypocracy. That is why the only ones who really can get away with saying something are those who are not white-males.

Shannon on March 8, 2006 at 11:17 am

“She leads the parade in misunderstanding the need, use and goal of Affirmative Action.”
Maybe you could explain it to us? My understanding is that it’s punishment of individuals today for the transgressions of others in the past.

keitht on March 8, 2006 at 11:24 am

I would be all to glad to explain it but that a very wordy subject and I fear any attempt to condense it would fail. So:
The plan was to fight crime, violence and poverty in the black community through education and infusion into mainline society. The idea was quickly expanded to cover a wider range of education and employment for all minorities. This stressed an already tenuous plan. Further stress was created when the burden of unfulfilled objectives were shifted to the private sector which was in general either unwilling or unable to shoulder the responsibilities. The government responded with half measures which have failed to do much good for either side.
Subsequently, we have two basic strategies. One is reactive and one is proactive. The reactive one is ever increasing amounts of police, jails and welfare. The other one is to manipulate the system as a whole through Affirmative Action to affect a change in a baseline of the population.
As I said, this synopsis is lacking and will probably not help explain much; but I feel inclined to say that if you are a regular Joe then you should know that life is a rigged game. This is as old as civilization itself. Preferential treatment in our times is also common and well excepted. Consider the gifted athlete who will receive what amounts to a free pass at a major university that includes measure to insure that you pass even if you were not a qualified applicant. As for politics or business, the old boys are still taking care of themselves and their own. The wealthy and powerful (or famous) live by different rules then most people. We see this constantly yet it never creates the same outcry and Affirmative Action.
PS. Please forgive my use of the word column. It shows my age. Those of us born long before the advent of the computer are used to seeing print in the form of long columns. Even some magazine articles were produces this way to accommodate the advertisements and pictures. We took to referring (erroneously) to all non book printed matter as columns.

MikeR on March 8, 2006 at 1:44 pm

I refuse to whine about it. Still making a good living and carrying a few of the freeloaders on my back – quite a few judging by the check I’ve got to write to the IRS… The alternative is worse.
Like my DI used to say “Life’s unfair and then you die.”

MarkD on March 8, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Qoute from MikeD: “Subsequently, we have two basic strategies. One is reactive and one is proactive. The reactive one is ever increasing amounts of police, jails and welfare. The other one is to manipulate the system as a whole through Affirmative Action to affect a change in a baseline of the population.”
Basically, fight discrimination with more discrimination. Have you read the 14th amendment?
I’ll support affirmative action when somebody can explain to me why my sister’s children, who live in the same suburb of the same city, attend the same schools as my children, and have all of the same advantages as my children, should receive preferential treatment over my children simply because of the color of their and their father’s skin.
No matter how you dress it up, affirmative action punishes individuals for things they didn’t do.
My kids (and my sister’s) will get by just fine (which I’m sure will be taken as another justification for discriminating), but everytime they’re asked to provide their demographic information on some application, or government form, they’ll know why.
Some day affirmative action will occupy the same category of history as Jim Crow. I wonder who will say that it was a good idea then.

keitht on March 9, 2006 at 9:07 am

Like I said, although my explanation was a poor, they are not fighting discrimination with more discrimination. They are trying to fix some problems by manipulating the system. Also, AA is clearly not about punishment. You may be confusing sacrifice with punishment and admittedly, forced sacrifice is a bad thing. Are you old enough to remember the draft? (seriously, no offense) Even people who planned to enlist after high school were irked about it. Will it bother you less when your children are attending college and you see a moronic, yet talented athlete getting preferential treatment simply because they can play basketball or football. At my old college that meant more than no tuition. It meant free tutors, better housing, always getting the schedule you wanted, stipends and gifts, extra time for exams and projects, leeway in attendance and the authorities ëlooking the other wayí from time to time. I understand that my college has won a few championships, but I never saw how that affected work or made society better. And of course, this doesnít even begin to address losing a job to someone who had íthe inside trackí. I doubt you will ever support AA, but thatís ok. I donít think there are any easy or clear cut answers to some of societyís problems. But you know, one way or another they will pry the tax money out of our hands until we die and then some.

MikeR on March 9, 2006 at 2:13 pm

MikeR, you are certainly good with euphemisms. Discrimination is “manipulating the system” and punishment is “sacrifice”. You should write a book (but I think it might already have been written). You may choose to except illogical explanations and role over to just accept your lot, but I choose to see things as they are.
I think college athletics are a joke. America has choosen to subsidize professional football and basketball and we all pay for it. The scholarships and other supports are just a natural outgrowth of perpetuating the farce. As long as there are so many interested in “manipulating the system”, it won’t change. Especially as long as there are people willing to use pretty words to make it all sound nice. Isn’t that how we ended up with social security? Its not welfare, its “insurance”.
By the way I am old enough to remember the draft. I was too young to participate. That didn’t matter though, as I volunteered. So I think I have an idea of what you describe as “sacrifice”, but I wouldn’t call it that. I made a personal choice for my own personal reasons. Thus we might have the basis of our disagreement on what is sacrifice and what is punishment. I would call the draft punishment.

keitht on March 10, 2006 at 10:33 am

Then we are at an impasse. If you considered the draft to be punishment then the rest of your reasoning falls in line. I didnít consider the draft to be punishment. I was told that I was being asked to make a sacrifice for my country. That disagreement is over semantics and perspective, not logic. Any remarks about me ëwriting a bookí donít further your position. People donít necessarily ësee things as they areí; we tend to see things as we choose.
That college athletics are a joke to you is fine. I donít care for them either. Support for them is perpetuating a farce. Thatís part of the point. Athletes are receiving preferential treatment at the expense of the university community at large.
I havenít been saying Affirmative Action is great. In fact, my initial explanation implied that AA was flawed. You asked for an explanation but I think your mind already had a fixed definition. Social security, on the other hand, ëis a whole nother storyí.
Hereís a good test. Go onto a more recent and popular thread of this site and ask the general question, ìWas the draft punishment or sacrifice?î There are many conservatives contributing here. Find what they think.

MikeR on March 10, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Qoute from MikeR: “Hereís a good test. Go onto a more recent and popular thread of this site and ask the general question, ìWas the draft punishment or sacrifice?î There are many conservatives contributing here. Find what they think.”
Its a good test only if the opinions of those that will be drafted are considered valid. Its very easy to support somebody else’s “sacrifice”. If defending your country and fighting its wars is important enough, then convince those who will fight and “sacrifice”. If you can’t do that, then I submit that the mob (I mean democracy) has no right to force them to fight. If that means a country is defeated or disappears, then I think that country probably wasn’t worth fighting for in the first place.
Qoute from MikeR: “I havenít been saying Affirmative Action is great. In fact, my initial explanation implied that AA was flawed. You asked for an explanation but I think your mind already had a fixed definition.”
My mind is made up based on the fact that AA holds individuals today responsible for actions perpetrated by others in the past and by reading of the 14th Amendment. Your explanation as to why this flawed process should be continued was nothing but creating new euphemisms (i.e., “discrimination” is “manipulating the system”, and “punishment” is “sacrifice”). I think Mr. Orwell would be proud.

keitht on March 13, 2006 at 2:38 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field